Skip to main content

tv   Transporation Authority Plans and Programs 51716  SFGTV  May 26, 2016 6:00am-7:31am PDT

6:00 am
distinction that at this point for discussion i wanted to raise, we don't currently have registered expenditure lobbyist. that may change so that probably isn't a persuasive point but a poichbt information. the other question about is there sadis tinction that is meaningful for purpose of these restrictions, if somebody is a person who receives compensation for the purpose of lobbying regular with the city and directly communicating with city officials to influence a decision versing someone they may spend more than the thresh hold amount and qualify as a expenditure lobbyist, there is the nexus to the decision maker may be one step removed. i think there are argument said on both sides. a expenditure lobbyist could respond millions of dollars in a attempt to get others to communicate. the question is contribution limits
6:01 am
and limiting that it is helpful to ask the question what is innexus we create and talk about restriction of the contributions. it is a conscious point to put that here and should have spelt it out in more detail but it was a conscious choice. >> the expenditure lobbyist may be a corporation that has to register as expenditure lobbyist and why should they not have to be under the same restrictions as a contact lobbyist? >> if i can chime in. as i mentioned, we have a obligation to gep legislative record that justifies these restrictions and given there are no expenditure lobbyist it is difficult to develop a regard. how do we demonstrate having a undo influence through contributions on city
6:02 am
officials? it is a impossible thing to prove from a evdincherary. >> we read about the corporations that pay for trips the public officials go arounds viz tding sister cities. the fact they are not registered as a expenditure lobbyist right now -i'm not-the fact they don't exist doesn't mean if there isn't a need to put the same restrictions on them as there is on a contact lobbyist. >> right and i just observe the [inaudible] did a great job in compiling the current slate of contact lobbyist and all the contributions they made to officials. a lot of what is bundling activity on their part. since we don't have expenditure lobbyist we can't develop the same type of regulation for that category of people.
6:03 am
>> in the need in developing a record would it be sufficient or useful to go back to the reasons a expenditure lobbyist provision was created in the first place and look to that even if people are not currently registered? look at circumstances that led to the creation of the law and see what those activities were? is that something that can be- >> since wree talking about gifts and contributions we would have to look at gift squz contributions to the expenditure lobbyist but at the current time there doesn't seem to be one. >> i didn't mean to interrupt public comment. >> zack from represent us and appreciate the questions because was curious about the changes as well. want to make a general point in support the proposal and add a data point about travel gifts and think could be
6:04 am
useful and subimate afterwards with e-mail lf want to echo others appreciation for commissioner andrews work, think you have done an amazing job and thank you so much. so, i guess my point of support on the proposal lobbyist shoulden be able to use gift squz donations specifically to influence city officials. we think our group thinks lobbyist serve a important purpose but when they can use contributions and travel gilfts and bundled mun athere is risk of corruption. the data point i want to add about travel gifts and i need ed to bring my phone up because i can't remember anything myself. just to be clear, we and i am not making acquisition about the people where mention but just pointing out nrfshz r
6:05 am
information we were able to find that has the risk of appearance of corruption. mayor ed lee wents on a 5 day trip in october of 2013 to china and south careera and cost 20, 500. richard petertion, a lobbyist for good year and vartoff investment which is a large real estate investment firm, the largest in san francisco. the ear marked contributions were made through a non profit named san francisco shanghai sister city committee for the travel. it was a 5 day trip. vartaus investment is a client of good year, hayward and peterson associates. [inaudible] contributed over
6:06 am
$500 to the trip. the exact amount is undisclose said. richard peterson contributesed $500 to the trip. the amount undisclosed and was able to acomany ed lee on the trip for 5 years. less than one month after the twip november 2013 vartaus investment picked up property said in san francisco for $100 million with intents of making improvements to furkter enhance the appeal to residents and tenants. in 20 freen richard peterson assisted vartaus investment with permit and community related opportunities. the following year richard peterson bundled [inaudible] for ed lee 2015 campaign. thank you. >> [inaudible] for lacking a
6:07 am
voice. thank you all for your attention to detail in this matter, we rely appreciate all the efforts of the staff. i feel very productive and think it is important we get this right so it means something if it goes to the ballot. i like to bring to your attention san francisco residents support this measure. prop c passed with flying color squz believe voters will show up to support the measure in november. to back that up a poll conducted pie the public policy polling found 82 percent of san francisco voters support banning gift of travel to alected afilthss and 79 percentf voters support the banning of gifts of any kind to elected officials from lobbyist. a change outward position we posted shows over 360 signatures from san francisco residents in support of this ballot initiative. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is david and also
6:08 am
from represent us and like to thank you for taking the time to entertain or potential proposal for the ballot. another thing i like to bring up is currently peoples confidence in government especially in san francisco is at a all time low. as you may recall from the gentlemen at the beginning of the meeting, the ethics commission is still the most trusted for meaningful ethics reform. if one of the chief rolls we are looking for is instill people with confidence of government. we are trying to make sure people know their system is being fixed and the loop holes in the law code that could give people the ability to provide undo influence on government actions is being taken care of and you guys are the vanguard of it. i also like to point out i feel it is critical both contact and
6:09 am
expenditure lobbyist are included in this even if there isn't a local and emphasis on only local for expenditure lobbyist having influence over government here in san francisco, it is a problem that is being faced in similar matters throughout the nation and need to make sure people know that we are not just replacing a loop hole with another and make sure the foundation we biltd is solid so we don't need to provide more proposals in the future to further close loop holes and praid a foundation to make sure the government works for us. >> [inaudible] represent us. i want to say this initiative still maintains the lobbyist legal rights and allows them to still contribute or give contributions just as a smaller level. we think maintaining lobbyist rights to contribute are very porbt and
6:10 am
don't want to demonize or minimize their contbulation but think that this initiative should be supported and look forward to your support in getting this on the ballot in november. i want to echo what was said about having expepdture and contact lobbyist included , we don't have expenditure lobbyist is equivalent to say the house isn't on fire so why do we need insurance. we should sure the law makes sense and thorough and doesn't put burden put help minimize the perception or risk to corruption in government. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi again commissioners, charley mar stellar for the record. i want to go through several items so i'll be very brief. election cycle is 2016,
6:11 am
17, 18 and 19. i should want to mention 17 is off the list as i remember we go from twnt 16 to 18 to 19. with the first policy area to be discussed as lobbyist because we reviewed current laws and see that this is the simplest area to do right now and then in the future we can do more complex items like campaign finance. you want to think this be aglobbyist reform, not acome pain finance matter even though it ovlays a little bit it is focused only on lobbyist. i see the new executive directors report doesn't show the number of registered lobbyist, just income increases in the current fiscal year which is 3 times the estimate that mr. st. croix placed in the budget for the current fiscal year. might
6:12 am
be useful to prepare a chart showing variation in the registered number of lobbyist over the years. say the past 10 years or so. i think a simple summary would be useful to see. i also think you need a simple summary and the public needs it for the origin and genesis oof the ordinance itself because it started in the 70's as i understood it through the board of supervisors- preidates the ethics commission which wasn't in business until 95 and so it is a hybrid bill because in 2005 we revisited it as part of the comprehensive so call, ethics reform and some of these things all interlay, so as far as applying the super majorityies to a-mind these ordinances, that certainly we
6:13 am
will need to know the origin and genesis of the original law because there is aspects of that law we will have to repeal and reenact so it would be covered by super majority reform later. there is legal issues that need to be ironed out regarding the application of what i call the stern proviso. i see a unifiication and think so do the advocates in the community between simple contact lobbying and expenditure lobbying. we don't see major difference. i think the public views it as lobbying and think that is what we want to also get clear in our mind. thank you. >> hello, [inaudible] member of represent us. thank you for your time. it is a pleasure getting involved in the political process in san francisco work wg your executive director
6:14 am
and staff. it is great at the interesting person meetings. we looked and reached out to some of the people opposed to prop c and had a opportunity to work with them at the interested persons meeting and talk to them and really tried to improve the process for reaching compromise and understanding what the issues others have and received positive comments from those people opposed to prop c we really turned thing around. we are not opposed to lobbying and want to support lobbyist ask and do play a role in government and have information and the ability to do research, we just want to restrict their influence by not having the amount of donations and gifts they can make. we think they have riget to make some donations and other courts
6:15 am
upheld some level of donation is okay. what is important is the roll of san francisco and the city and country isf is has a history of bringing up the fomost politicians in the country and what we would like to see san francisco lead by example by having strict codes where strong politicians can rise and work through the ranks and not be persuaded to spend all their time raising money get nothing fluence working to bundles of mun oney they can focus on serving the citizen jz needs and knowing they are playing on a level playing field so if you do that you will make it possible for politician tooz rise through the ranks from san francisco to sacramento to washington dc and will carry the sense of fair play. the citizen jz voters support the efforts to clean up things.
6:16 am
yoi look at the presidential campaign, read on the way over, mu caulis [inaudible] hillary clintons is investigated by the fbi. the notion of corruption in politics is the forfront of the news and in san franciscan's mind and support this and appreciate the support of the commission. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners and director pelum. wanted to bring to the commissions attention, one of the members from represent us outlined quickly mayor lee's trip to one of the sister cities or a couple sister cities and his trip to israel which had a aunt rauj of 29 people, members of
6:17 am
various city departments a large number of non profits that included one of the developers from prodo development group. there is a very strong pattern of the same sort of sister city visits largely financed by non profit groups and it is something for the commission to remember. if it is just one sister city that is one thing but most of the mayors visits have all been sister city funded primarily by non profits. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i am a san francisco resident and really love the city and i think fixing corruption is important to
6:18 am
the people who live in it and [inaudible] people beyond it and wanted to say i'm excited to vote for it in november if it passes. >> good evening commissioners peter cohen with council of community housing organization. good to see several again. mrs. pelum, did the commissioners get the letter submitted? it came late but after the packet and copies because i have some here if you need them. we submitted along with human service network very minor but important detailed comments suggestions on the draft for your consideration. before i get into those, a few things on process. support staff recommendation to take comments, let this digest, come back with
6:19 am
revised draft in june, take your timeism you have until august as the staff report says. from our experience with prop c we think it is very important to get it right and take the time to go through all the details and make sure when and put forward your vote you ironed out whatever wrinkles are necessary so we support staffs recommendation to continue this. shoked point is we had chance to talk to represent us folks. i have to say they are really professional peep squl it is a pleasure to work through this stuff. i'm not a lawyer or ethics professional but it is helpful to talk to folks who can break it down and explain in pragmatic terms what this is about and intent and target and compared to our previous experience it is very
6:20 am
refreshing it allowed hsn and choochooto get to the specifics quickly so we appreciate that. which leads to our general support of this measure and intent to the extent we understand what is being drafted so makes sense and looks good, we encourage you to reach out to the broad non profit community. we are a couple coalitions in it and make sure there are not unin10ed traps but so far it looks straight forward. we offer the specific details there that have to do with the type of activities non profits are engaged in. it may be clarifying existing exemptions of things already in law and make sure they are not swept away like events or conferences, when we invite someone to speak at an event we have, these are very simple day to day activities, not sending delications to china
6:21 am
for 5 weeks so want to make sure those type of things are allowances for us in the world we operate in and happy to work with you and the legislation sponsors going forward and the staff. i'll take any questions if you have them. thanks. >> alex kaplan, the policy director for represent us. on behalf the organization i want to thank you for entertaining this and taking the time to read and specifically thank the staff for their hard work on this. the interested persons meeting we had we had a good group of people to make sure the proposed measure addresses what we see. the interest and [inaudible] create reasonable exemptions that don't address the problem. i want to say we appreciate the city attorney
6:22 am
and staffs attempt to create language and not [inaudible] will differ to the city attorneys choices. i think the core problem here is the perception of corruption and the south korea trip is a example to [inaudible] corruption to bundle a lot of money and give large contributions. that isn't to say there are not instances of corruption occurring but we are not trying to accuse anybody, the focus is on the san francisco voters and perception of voters that is occurring here and across the country. also want to make clear, it is my understanding stream court juriss prudence on how
6:23 am
this works in response to the findings the city attorneys office brought up, a jurisdiction need not suffer specific problems that they see occurring in other places in order to enact measures. i think that is important to address the concern of the expenditure lobbyist. i spress the concern director pelum brought up, we haven't soon a problem because it hasn't existed. i suggest we insert the super majority similar to prop c to empower the commission to extend from contract lobbyist to all lobbyist. i think we can think create ivly making sure we don't have to go back to the voters. i want to point out on page 4 the language of bundling suggested by the staff. shall deliver or bundle
6:24 am
or otherwise transmit. we spent time talk about what that means because we want a clear definition. we want the regulated parties to be clear what they can and can't do. we suggested no lobbyist transmit or arrange for a person to transmit on behalf of the lobbyist. that is trying to mirror fcc regulations at the federal level and think it is wurkt looking at the simpplicity and want to make clear that second clause, the range or any person to transmit on behalf is about circumvention so the bundling words deliver and transmit and concern about the word arrange is it is hard to understand what is means. sorry about the time with my concern, my main kernel about the lower contribution limit. we suggested $50, that isn't a hard number but also not uncommon across the country for lower limits that are specific to parties doing business. public contractors so lobbyist to be sig competently low er a
6:25 am
10th or 5th. i dont think the $500 limit that mirrors what is currently in place for everyone in san francisco does anything to instill voter cfsds to say lobbyist also only contribute $500 but it more taylored to include the committees controlled so urge the commission to consider dropping that $500 down to something low enough that instills voter confidence. thank you. >> good evening. [inaudible] i submitted written comments may 19 but have the following comments this evening regarding gifts, the proposing gift ban is not needed. the current limit of $25 is so low that it cant inpossibly have a crupg corrupting influence on a city officer.
6:26 am
the proposed gift ban will prohibit gifts of travel from governmental agency, educational institution or charity for legislative or governmental purpose or related to state, national or international public policies. prohibiting such gifts mean all such travel is funded by the city using tax money used for other critical governmental functions. the lobbying law also prohibits lobbyist from making a gift exceeding $25. the ethic law prohiblts a auftser to [inaudible] since the ethics law provision is narrow drawn, the commission should take the opportunity to reconcile the two provisions by deleting the lobbyist gift ban with language indicating a lobbyist is subject to gift
6:27 am
restrictions in theectics law. regarding contribution limits the amendments bring up the lobbyist from contributing more than $50 regardless if they are registered to lobby. $50 is similar to the states former ban on contributions that was invalidated by the california supreme court in 1979. the contribution ban was a substantial restriction on the lobest freedom of association and the state failed to demonstrate a important interest or emmeans closely drawn to avoid bridgment of associated freedoms. in reaching the decision the court relied on the fact the ban applied to all candidates eerfben though a lobious may not lobby a particular candidate. regarding [inaudible] the ban on the bundling of contributions is not needed
6:28 am
since bundleds contributions is subject to detail disclosure requirements. in addition there is fram court precedents a ban on bundling by lobbyist violates the first amendment and green party och connecticut a[inaudible] not only invalidated a ban on lobbyist ntd contribution it was also state law [inaudible] staif candidates. reaching this conclusion the court state adlimit on the solicitation of permissible contributions prohibits the type of activity that lies at the first amendment-core. that is because it involves speech to solicit contribution on behalf of a candidate is to make a statement. you should support this candidate not only at the polls but with a financial contribution.
6:29 am
speech utters during the campaign requires the application of the protection set forth in the first amendment. i urge you to not impose the ban of contribution by lobbyist. >> can i ask a question of you please? on your last points regarding reporting, could you clarify how in your view reporting on for example, the shanghai and south korea- >> everyone knows who is contributing. under san francisco law out of town trips the elected officials can not take the out of town trips funded by persons other than government unless
6:30 am
that information is provided on the report and assume that is how they obtain the recommendation. the disclosure is there. court held providing disclosure is one of the main reasons that you can actually provide the information people need to make decisions whether it is who to vote for or the decisions being made by the legislative body so disclosure is very important and that-bundling, gifts are all disclosed on lobbying reports. >> so that is disclosure for the benefit of the public but how does that impact the decisions made by the elected official receiving the benefit of a bundled contribution? how does a disclosure get tothat question? >> the official clearly knows
6:31 am
the information is being disclosed and i'm assuming most people make decisions in the best interest of the public. if there is a conflict they can't make a decision and the law provides for conflicts under political reform act in san francisco so if there is proper disclosure and no conflict they should be able to make the decision. thank you. >> thank you. >> ray [inaudible] i like to remind the previous speaker about the fact that the city librarian lieu eshurarea received 5 thousand a year for gifts from outside group he was supposed to provide oversight to and then lied about it year after year after year on a statement of economic interest so if we rely on the fact somebody will report the fact they gave somebody a nice big fat gift of a trip or whatever
6:32 am
it was i think we are pinning our hopes on something that isn't dependable. i think many of the previous speakers said what i believe is quh the voters vote, a lobbyist is a lobbyist and don't give a rip to whether they fall into a specific category or not. [inaudible] consequences says the bottom line as you formulate the change to the law, the lobbyist are looking at the changes you are making and thinking how they will out maneuver you so basically if you leave out one type of lobious i guarantee that next year you may not any this year, you will next year because they are sitting there thinking we are not subject to the law so we'llchange from this lobbyist to that lobbyist and give our money this way instead of that way. that is what everybody is looking at. there
6:33 am
are a lot of people that gain the system. they hann money to someone who is supposed to do something and that person fails to do it. the city librarian, thousands of dollars worth of gifts he received and lied about it under penalty of perjury, this is matter of public record and then when and go and say what happened to it $10 million over the last year the group friend of the library raised and expended, they can't give a answer. they can't tell you where a penny of that money went. the board of supervisors on authorized to accept a gift from that person in the amont of $375 thousand which means 94 cents out of the dollar is going to fund raising. we have seen the public detriment that groups that proport to be supplying or providing gifts and benefits to
6:34 am
a group are allowed to raise money and just spend the money on themselves. what i said to the library commission over and over is what we get for the friends is the friends. basically they raise money to support their own operation and if you ask the city librarian, the library commission, show me anything you received from this group that shows what the library got from them and will tell you there are no responsive documents. so, this needs to be all lobbyist and the fact we need a record is a way of leaving it out and the bottom line is it needs to be done and it needs to cover all lobbyist because that is what the voters will think when they vote. >> thank you. >> my name is greg brian, the attorney and also with represent us. i
6:35 am
would just going discuss a few issues i think are important. one is under the gifts section, they removed the ear marking thing in the recommended changes and think it is important people not able to give gift s to a thirdperty and go to the official in the end. that is a important provision i feel should be back in the proposed legislation. the other thing i want to talk about is regard to the expenditure lobbyist. we have to establish a burden to show that it is needed. i think we should be able to incorporate what we saw with proposition c and what is going on in other jurisdictions if we don't have expenditure lobbyists that are not registered. if they are not registered there is a good possibility
6:36 am
following the laws and guidelines and there may be ways to show that is the case. in which case, there would be a way of showing there is some meeting a burden on us to show that is a issue. the last thing i want to say is if we don't address the expenditure lobbyist what will happen is you will get contact lobbyist and other corporations working ways to circumvent going the expenditure lobbyist route to get around the regulation. there is a $5 olimit is still a limit and not a flat out ban so it is like we can kis cuss like the $50 limit and $500 limit but the fact of the matter it isn't a ban so should meet constitutional definition. they have the requirements. that is all i want to
6:37 am
say. i think the legislation is well written and appreciate everybodys time and commitment to this and want to thank you and thank everybody here for all their hard work on this. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to jump to item number 8, which is a discussion and possibly action on items for future meetings. the reason i skipped 6 and 7 is both call for the possibility of a closed hearing and we will assuming that the commission votes to go into a closed session we will deal with both 6 and 7 at that time and we will try and deal with the rest of the agenda in advance so people who don't have to sit
6:38 am
and wait for us when we come out of closed session to take up these other items. is there any commissioner who has any suggestions of for items for future meetings? i will take public comment on that. hearing none, turn to 9, which is discussion of the executive drethers report. >> thank you commissioners renne. item 9 is the material summary of the key items from the office over the last month. most notebly good news in terms of the electronic filing e filing conversion project. we
6:39 am
received the green light from the information of technology to fund the project for the next two years including staffing. the mayor is expected to announce the june first budget i believe on the 31 and so we expect we'll have more detailed information about the final budget package and as we do we will share that information with you. my sense at this poipt is we are optimistic there will be strong support for the commission to advance work in the coming years. i wish i had more details but as soon as the budget package is finalized we will get that to. you had 120 applications for deputy director positions. i look forward giving further updates on that soon as we move forward and want to make a note, i regret that to
6:40 am
share the highlighter garret chatfields has take an promotional opportunity to move to departmentf opublic health so his last day was last friday and will post that position and trying to fill that as soon as we can. he was a good person and great person to work with. just wanted to note that. >> are we posting both positions? the one that isn't funded that is authorized but not funded? >> we are prepared to get out the gate as soon as possible on anything for any position. it is a priority to get those then door as soon as we can. >> kooyou have a target gate for hiring the deputy director? >> we are at the end of may, i would love to have someone here at the early part of the fiscal year. i
6:41 am
will leave the other information-just a quick note under policy and legislation. the state legislative committee follow up to support sb 1107 is the bill that have the effect going to the voters to enable public financing systems to be created at the local jurisditional level, the committee on state legislation approved it unanimously and will communicate that to the state lechblg slairt. we will continue the discussion of policy plan for the coming year at the next meeting. simply didn't have the band widt to do the work necessary to bring it fully to this meeting and think the next meeting we will have a realistic sense of the time for that consideration so thank you for your indullgence. happy to
6:42 am
answer questions. >> questions? >> yes, mr. pelemsprz regarding to e filing conversion project, since that is funded bithe city, will the commission budget be reduced? >> no the funding is separate and apart from operational budget decisions so that is terrific news >> will then the project be able to get started right away in the beginning of the fiscal year cephal >> yes we have the nrfgz technology officer who will start that and as soon as we bring on the staff person to assist with that that will be the person involved with the project development and anticipate we will start that as soon as we can. >> great news. >> yeah, thank you. >> public discussion? >> ray san francisco open government. i like to acknowledge the
6:43 am
chairs rearrangement of the agenda. i looked and said we will have two closed session squz if the public wants to have the executive directors report and comment they will be denied unless they want to sit and wait at the pleasures of the ethics commission induterminant return from the closed sessions. i would like to point out that one part where we are talking about garret chatfield leaving. if i understand correctly, the reason we were 69 or 70 complaints behind in investigations is because mr. chatfield and other investigator are only part time positions so we are down to one part time position and i didn't hear a answer when that position will be filled or relating to the one that is open for god knows how long. part the reason your budget didn't go up is because you had a position and
6:44 am
didn't fell it and the city will look for low haj ing fruit. you have a position that should be filled and isn't and will take the money away assuming if you don't fill the position you don't need it. i worked with the state government in hawaii and that is how it works you use it when you have the money or you lose it. that is why i thought it was ludicrous you didn't ask for increase whether everyone else was going ball tooz had wall, everyone in the city everyone was hiring and city employees has risen enormously over the last 6 or 7 years and the ethics commission was sitting with unfilled positions and money to fill them and didn't. we had that discussion but and if the mayor should approve your 30 or
6:45 am
40 percent increase i suggest you dont repeat that bad behavior which is having the position and funding for it and fail toog fill it. my opinion is mr. st. croix left those positions vacant for the intent it would slow investigations. mr. st. croix was well established history of using all sorts of administrative tricks to get hearings heard in odd ways or not heard at all. i will reaffirm the one that ticked me off is the fact i was a interested party in the ethics commission which was announced the day before i left for vacation and heard the day before i returned. notifying me that hearing would be held. i also
6:46 am
like when i say the last word and the bell rings and you ring it and others come up and you let them go on and on and on. >> any other public comment? hearing none, we'll turn to item 6. discussion and possible action regarding mark farrell versing for district 2 supervisor 2010 versus city and county of san francisco >> do you want to take item 10 prior to going into discussion of closed session? >> approve the minutes? i'm happy to do it but my feeling is that not a item but we'll take 10 and do i hear any motion to approve the minutes as
6:47 am
written? >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. any discussion among the commissioners? any public discussion? >> ray san francisco open government. i like everybody who has the opportunity to review these minutes and see there are two 150 word summaries i provided in the body of the minutes. i fought long and hard to insure the law which states if a person submits a summary of 150 word or less of public comment it will appear in the minute. as these two do. the reason i fought so long and hard is i was tired having my public comments misrepresented, abridged senseards and otherwise changed bay the cities library commission and basically they would take things and i would write a comment and go to the meeting and they talk
6:48 am
about the minutes and i would say this is not what i said. this is exactly the opposite of what i said and what they would do is if they found a comma out of place they change it. if the member the public came up and said my comments are not representative of what they said they ignore that and continue to do that. i put the 150 words in not because some species people do and say he wants a transcript what is said in the minutes, no but i like it representative because it is constitutionally protected political free speech. the fact a public record is printed by the government and mis represents what a member of the public says is looked at as no big deal. my first amendment and free speech right jz rights under the brown act
6:49 am
means something. i don't come here to jap my jaw, i have something that feels needs to be said and it is amauzing how many times i have to fight to say thing jz not be interrupted and fight to have what i actually said represented in a reasonable fashion in the official record. i fought hard for this because the thing where mentioned several times earlier is the library commissions $80 million shifted through the hands. the public knows nothing about it. $80 million and what did the library get? ask mr. her era and mrs. blackman and the library commission. show us something the library got from the friends. what mr. her era got is he got $75 thousand a year as a [inaudible] fund. money he can
6:50 am
pass out as goodies to the staff at the library. no wonder he doesn't get disagreement on that. then he perjures himself and lies that he didn't get anything. >> thank you. seeing no other public comment, call the question, all in favor of approving the minutes for the meeting of april 25? >> aye. >> opposition? approved unanimously. turning now to item number 9, which is-i mean item number 6, which is a discussion and possible action regarding the mark farrell complaint which was attached to the agenda. i will first raise the question of any
6:51 am
commissioner believe this should be in closed session? >> move we go into closed session. >> any second? >> second. >> any public comment? >> ray san francisco open government. i raised objections about this item. it is related to the money that supervisor farrell has been asked to repay. i see the punch by filing his court case against you so basically you are keeping it hidden from whatever you are doing, keeping it hidden from the public didn't do any good. i like to be frank about something. i was sort of on the sly [inaudible] because i made a remark that something was being pulled or secret deal is done, but i hate to break it to you, that is what the citizens of the city think. when you go into closeed session
6:52 am
they do believe there is something going back-on back there and asking the old days where it is like we are honorable people serving here for the god of the citizens of san francisco, that is gone. people don't believe that because most the people appointed to the commissions and boards get appointed because they want aopponented to another board or commission. the old idea anyone serving their own time is automatically supposed to be assumed as being this above question -cesars wife. above reproach. those days are gone. the more in private session don't be surprised people say i question it. i'm only saying out loud when i question you going into closed session, other people are thinking it, they just don't get up and say it and
6:53 am
the reason they don't say it is they know it is a popularity contist. i may be before you with a case at some point and want you to rule in your favor so have to be careful not to say something that puts your nose out of joint. i learned it doesn't make a difference so mine as well be honest about it and say it. closed session is the perception of the public is you are back there cooking the books mptd i center 24 orders of determination and every one is a violation oof the sunshine ordinance found by the body leaguely counsituteed to hear the matters and decide them and they were members of board, commissions or city agencies decide they would ignore the responsibilities under the law, interfere with my speaking, they were going to misrepresent what i said when i spoke in the official record
6:54 am
and they would with hold public records from me which i needed to effectively per sue my first amendment rights. bottom line is, just be aware when you go into closed session, people are watching. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. charley again mar stellar for the record. i want to say i'm glad we have at least seen a little something from mr. farrell but it isn't in person. i would invite him to make a appearance before the body at any time but now that you are in litigation maybe that isn't something his council would advise. i would like a legal opinion and wonder if in closed session you could raise the following question, should you be stood up in the future and say the party did not
6:55 am
respond to you with a counter suit or whatever this is technically called, does the commission have the power to fine someone in contempt? and realize there is not a penalty to that, but it seems to me that had we never heard from mr. farrell we would have just been left hanging and i dont thichck think it was the intent when we wrote the heart in 93 and i didn't personal do that, that was done by mr. shelly and bush, that they intended for you to be stood up or ignoreed and have no re-dress. i think that is a good legal question for you to ask council to research for some future case where this might come up because frankly, up until we finally heard or saw some signal from
6:56 am
mr. farrell, we didn't know what he was thinking or what he would have said because he never came to this podium to say a word. he went through proxy and i think that by in itself is in a sense somewhat contempious but he had his rights with council to act that way, but he is an official of the city and county of san francisco and his standard of behavior and conduct should bow be far higher than the average citizen because he took a sworn oath and that oath i think fundamentally he has violated by his behavior in this manner. that is all i will
6:57 am
say. >> call the vote on the motion to go in closed session on the item number 6. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? carried unanimously and i will turn to item 7 and discussion and possible action regarding complaint received or initiated by the ethics commission concerning san francisco campaign and government conduct code section 3.230 prohibition on knowing directly or indirectly soliciting political contributions from other city officers or employees. motion to take
6:58 am
that in closed session? public comment? hearing no public comment i'll call the question, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? carried unanimously, the commission will go into closed session on items number 6 and 7. my estimate would be that we should have completed that within the next 30 to 60 minutes and we will go back in open session after it is completed.
6:59 am
7:00 am
7:01 am
>> the commission unanimously voted to accept a stipulation on behalf of respondent george gascone. respondent christine soto debari and michael swart where in they stipulated that they violated section 3.230 which prohibits any city officer for sulitinging political contributions #23r5u78 any other city employee directly or
7:02 am
indirectly unless the solicitation is a communication targeted to the significant segment of the public which may include city officers. they stipulated at a fundraising event there were solicitations made of city employees to mr. gascones campaign, where the bulk if not all of the participants were employees of his office or other city employees. mr. gascone has accepted responsibility and has agreed to pay a fine of $4 thousand for the alleged violation or
7:03 am
stipulated violations and mrs. dubari, agreed to pay a fine of $14,000. i mean, 1, 400 and mr. swart agreed to pay the fine of 1, 400. i would say i think it is important for the public to understand that all 3 of these individuals admitting they have violated the section said they were unaware of the prohibition about city
7:04 am
employees solicit other city employee and in the case of mr. gascone, he certainly had attended ethics training which contained training concerning the specific prohibition which all 3 of them said that they were really not aware existed partly because they had been solicited by other city employees in the past. hopefully this disposition of these will be a message to all city employees concerning the ban on city employees soliciting other
7:05 am
city employees. there were also listed a number of individuals from the office who were part of the host for this fundraiser on november 13 and those individuals, no fines are being assess against them, but they will receive warning letters reminding them of the ban so that it will not occur in the future. any- >> mr. chair. during the closed session i put on the record at the request of the city attorney that over the years i have had
7:06 am
professional contacts with chief and district attorney george gasconon various matters dealing with the cities crimial justice system and it was the sense the commission in regard to those contacts that i have had with him on those matters that those did not arise to any kind of level of requiring me to recuse myself and the city attorney also agreed that those pasted contacts i had with district attorney george gascon procedurely professional on matters deal wg the cities criminal justice system and did not require me to recuse myself. >> any public comment on the
7:07 am
matters that were covered in closed session? hearing none, do i hear a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> before we adjourn, i think commissioner addrews wants to make a statement. >> thank you chair. i should have made it before closeed session because now my audience is gone. i did want to take the opportunity to say what a honor it has been serving on the commission over these past 3 years and want to thank the commission while i was on a steep learning curve at the same time quit interested in good government and it plays out so much in our personal and professional lives and continues to be clear to me
7:08 am
with my service here. i am empressed with the work we have done thus far. with the passing of prop c and with chair renne and myself servings as a commission of two and commission support and hiring executive director pelumand continue to be impressed with her. throughout that process i had a opportunity to spend some time with your staff, your now staff and i recognize the level of dedication and commitment and passion they have for the work and their high level of skill and it looks like a great partnership you will have with them and encourage you to create professional opportunities for them as often as you can. to commissioner chiu, sorry i didn't have a opportunity to work with you. i know in the few
7:09 am
comments and the few amounts of work we have done together that i know that the commission will be well served by your seat, so thank you for your service in advance. i did want to say that i took last month to assess the work at my organization and recognize that there were increasing demands and those increasing demands were not going to go away any time soon and know the commission deserves someone who has the time and energy it needs to commit to this very crucial work and i knee i wasn't going to be able to do that in the way i feel good about and frankly for what the commission deserves so it is with heavy heart i do stand down and i look forward to sitting in the odd ynss audience on the other side and continue to know about the work
7:10 am
on the commission and want to thank everybody for their collegeial friendship along the way and wish you all best wishes. >> thank you. likewise we wish you good luck and best wishes in the expanded endeavor. i will be interested to hear how it goes. >> thank you. >> i will now entertain a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> public discussion? no comment? alright, the meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned] good aftern
7:11 am
7:12 am
7:13 am
7:14 am
7:15 am
we will begin with the pledge of allegiance and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you madam secretary. >> this is a reminder under the administrative code the ringing and use of cells and pagers and similar sounding electronic devices is prohibited set all to vibrate or turn the device completely off now the regular meeting wednesday, may 25, 2016, and the time is 5:00 p.m. item one roll call.
7:16 am
>> commissioner president covington commissioner vice president cleaveland commissioner nakajo commissioner hardeman chief of the department chief joanne hayes-white and item 2 public comment members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction pooifkz the speakers, the lack of a response does not remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individuals. >> thank you, madam secretary any members of the public who would like to speak at this time. >> thank you just come to the podium.
7:17 am
>> game-changer commissioners and chief my name is dan (inaudible) i'm here to speak on the same topic as last week (inaudible). >> by all means that was taken off the agenda can you watch his the time it was taken off the agenda there are ongoing discussions and deliberations regarding how best to solve that problem okay. so continue. >> in this case, i will just like to keep this at the first and foremost and (inaudible)
7:18 am
currently we have 3 field supervisors covering the entire city and frankly (inaudible) the varsity (inaudible) and crews cost i wish my experience as a paramedic and acting sf r s d (inaudible) to allow people that work for me to receive the best they possibly can (inaudible) if a supervisor can't make to out to (inaudible)
7:19 am
make the difference in crew safety were we also have a responsibility to the public to provide safety if our crews are not able to work to the best of their ability, their not properly supervised and that's not fair and the interest interest of having supervisors in the field will be time we may have an mc i casualty and one of the supervisors is dedicated to that he can have an example s d that is working on retaliation we have had one supervisor for
7:20 am
the entire city . >> thank you any public comment on this item? at this time seeing none, public comment is closed. please call the next item >> item 3 approval of the minutes minutes from the regular meeting of april 13, 2016. >> thank you, madam secretary just for my fellow commissioners before we vote on this item i have cared with our commission secretary and there were a couple of things in the minutes for our meeting in the mission
7:21 am
that i would like to expand on page 4 under presentation item 7 - presentation from the bureau of fire investigation i am suggesting we have a little bit more information about our fire marshall comments regarding the fires in the mission and how the numbers and type of fires compare to other district in the city not here and included so paragraph and visuals for that captain russel on page 5 go those are not changes but changes i'm proposing at this time. >> (inaudible).
7:22 am
>> okay. thank you that is for the april 27th meeting second. >> seconded by commissioner hardeman > all in favor signify by i. > i. >> all right. april 27th and we have the minutes for april 13th signify by the if you say okay special meeting from may 13, 2016. >> so moved thank you please signify by the. >> i. >> all 3 minutes have been approved item 4 certifies and acknowledgment of
7:23 am
appreciation for the mta who took swift action on a member of the public that experienced an emergency thank you dmilg i'd like to ask the captain up to the podium and while doing so i want to acknowledge captain oftentimes we don't hear enough of the great work of the colleagues no the city and the captain took the time to let us know i wouldn't have common about the great partners in the sfmta we appreciate you're adding to the agenda i thought since the captain was here and acknowledged and asked for the mta members you'll describe that.
7:24 am
>> (inaudible). >> perfect. >> exactly. >> i'd like to take the opportunity to commend the actions of sfmta on february 19, 2016, engine one responded to (inaudible) the call came in at 613 and a slower response time the quick actions by bystander cpr by folks were vitally no saifgs the patients life they assistant the patient and was not breathing through chest compressions got the candy and crew one was able to transfer that's a lot more sanitary than
7:25 am
on scene an awful scene quite a period of time revealing the person definitely went above and beyond the call of duty and thank you to the officers for their action chief. >> thank you, captain and thank you for taking the time to acknowledge the coworkers and colleagues at this time, i'd like to join you and acknowledge the great work of the mta and the supervisors is here meg in any if we can get the employees to come up. >> so i'll read from here each
7:26 am
of i are receiving a certificate of merited communication they'll be the same to for our service and quick actions to a patient from a partial airway obstruction on february 2016 your quick initiative contributed to the outcome for 9 and to sheryl, karen smith and allen i understand just pled our emt today at city college i'll present this to you and alleging you'll be speaking on behalf of the group so congratulations. >> (clapping.) >> sherman.
7:27 am
>> thank you. >> thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you very much and i'd like to thank the fire department we did on february was i think a small inning with the fire department does all the time and i grew up in the city and born and raised and went to high school and a lot of my friends go to the fire department not realizing the sxoep that the fire department does for the city i started taking the emt work with all the work i started doing invested with some of the crews and really was in shock the amount of effort, the amount of work that is put in by the
7:28 am
fire department to support the city of san francisco and identify seen it amend when i was out there with the ambulance crews to see the miles. >> and the hope for the fire department sees for the whole city the heroes are with the fire department thank you >> thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thank you all very much please stay the commissioners would like to say a word or so to commissioner nakajo. >> thank you madam president hopefully my microphone is on i just wanted to say a commissioner with this fire commission commission chief
7:29 am
joanne hayes-white and command staff and members i'm just really move forward by your action this thought in my mind i'm glad you were there that day if it was me i would need your help and for you to take the time to go ahead and work with us i'd like the description you talked about the screen you said a good term that term kind of lead me to the chaos that might have occurred if not for yourselves and chief joanne hayes-white i appreciate your partnership with the city. >> thank you so much for your services well >> thank you commissioner nakajo commissioner hardeman. >> thank you, madam chair
7:30 am
naturally i appreciate san francisco appreciates the action for the duty you're not assigned to we were there in a pinch using your education and abilities to assist sounds like if without your actions the person would not to have survived so thank you very much congratulations and i agree with you entirely with our statement about you don't know much about the fire department until you get involved and as a commissioner we learn the same thing the duties and how people go about their business each day is remarkable and lucky to have this great fire department in san francisco and back up from services like mta thank you very much. >> thank you commissioner hardeman commissioner vices